Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diet habits and trophic ecology of Rio Grande Sucker and Rio Grande Chub

  • Published:
Environmental Biology of Fishes Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Freshwater fishes are among the most imperiled organismal groups in the world and efforts to conserve many species are hindered by a lack of basic information pertaining to the diet habits and trophic relationships of various fish species. The purpose of this study was to fill knowledge gaps pertaining to the feeding habits and trophic ecology of Rio Grande chub (Gila pandora) and Rio Grande sucker (Catostomus plebeius) to aid in their conservation and protection. Specifically, we conducted (1) a literature review of the feeding habits of Rio Grande chub and Rio Grande sucker to summarize existing information and (2) a field study to quantify the describe the feeding habits and trophic relationships of these chub and sucker species. Review of previously published literature revealed no empirical diet studies for Rio Grande chub and only two studies for Rio Grande sucker. Statements about the diet habits of each fish species were vague and repeated through published gray and peer-reviewed literature. Findings from our field study provided far greater detail about each species diet composition and diet overlap. Rio Grande chub primarily fed on aquatic macroinvertebrates whereas Rio Grande sucker primarily consumed stream periphyton, and to a lesser degree, benthic macroinvertebrates. Both species selected aquatic Coleoptera larvae relative to prey availability. Our findings provide a clearer understanding of the feeding habits and trophic relationships and can be used to guide restoration or enhancement efforts to help maintain and improve the viability of their populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  • Behn KE, Baxter CV (2019) The trophic ecology of a desert river fish assemblage: influence of season and hydrologic variability. Ecosphere 10:e02583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benke AC, Huryn AD, Smock LA, Wallace JB (1999) Length-mass relationships for freshwater macroinvertebrates in North America with particular reference to the southeastern United States. J N Am Benthological Soc 18:308–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bestgen KR, Nesler TP, Zelasko K, Compton R, Alves J (2003) Distribution and status of Rio Grande chub in Colorado. Final report to the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado, pp 61

  • Calamusso B, Rinne JN, Edwards RJ (2005) Historic changes in the Rio Grande fish fauna: status, threats, and management of native species. Am Fish Soc Symp 45:205–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Calamusso B, Rinne JN (1996) Distribution of Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis) and its co-occurrence with Rio Grande sucker Catostomus plebeius, and Rio Grande chub, Gila pandora on the Carson and Santa Fe National Forests. In: Shaw DW, Finch DM (eds) Proceedings of the Symposium of Desired Future Conditions for Southwestern Riparian Ecosystems: Bringing Interests and Concerns together. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM, pp 157–167

  • Chesson J (1983) The estimation and analysis of preference and its relationship to foraging models. Ecology 64:1297–1304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins SF, Baxter CV, Marcarelli AM, Wipfli MS (2016) Effects of experimentally added salmon subsidies on resident fishes via direct and indirect pathways. Ecosphere 7:e01248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contreras-Balderas S, Edwards RJ, de Lourdes L-V, García-Ramírez ME (2002) Fish biodiversity changes in the lower Rio Grande/Rio Bravo, 1953–1996. Rev Fish Biol Fish 12:219–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cope ED, Yarrow HC (1875) Report upon the collections of fishes made in portions of Nevada, Utah, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona, during 1871, 1872, 1873, and 1874. Rept. Georgr. Geol. Exploration Surv. West 100th Meridian (Wheeler Survey) 5:637–700

  • Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata ZI, Knowler DJ, Lévêque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard AH, Soto D, Stiassny ML, Sullivan CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev 81:163–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fausch KD, Lyons J, Karr JR, Angermeier PL (1990) Fish communities as indicators of environmental degradation. Am Fish Soc Symp 8:123–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Guy CS, Cox TL, Williams JR, Brown CD, Eckelbecker RW, Glassic HC, Lewis MC, Maskill PA, McGarvey LM, Siemiantkowski MJ (2021) A paradoxical knowledge gap in science for critically endangered fishes and game fishes during the sixth mass extinction. Sci Rep 11:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoagstrom CW, Remshardt WJ, Smith JR, Brooks JE (2010) Changing fish faunas in two reaches of the Rio Grande in the Albuquerque Basin. Southwest Nat 55:78–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horgan P (1984) Great River, the Rio Grande in North American history. Wesleyan University Press, Hanover

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphries P, Winemiller KO (2009) Historical impacts on river fauna, shifting baselines, and challenges for restoration. Bioscience 59:673–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivie J, George O, Collins SF (2022) Assessing the predatory effects of invasive Brown Trout on native Rio Grande Sucker and Rio Grande Chub in mountain streams of New Mexico, USA. Conservation 2:514–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izagirre O, Serra A, Guasch H, Elosegi A (2009) Effects of sediment deposition on periphytic biomass, photosynthetic activity and algal community structure. Sci Total Environ 407:5694–5700

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koster WJ (1957) Guide to the fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee DS, Gilbert CR, Hocutt CH, Jenkins RE, McAllister DE, Stauffer JR (1980) Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh

    Google Scholar 

  • McPhee MV (2007) Age, growth, and life history comparisons between invasive white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) and native Rio Grande sucker (C. plebeius). Southwest Nat 52:15–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller SW, Budy P, Schmidt JC (2010) Quantifying macroinvertebrate responses to in-stream habitat restoration: applications of meta-analysis to river restoration. Restor Ecol 18:8–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moyle PB, Leidy RA (1992) Loss of biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems: evidence from fish faunas. In: Fiedler PL, Jain SK (eds) Conservation Biology. Springer, Boston, pp 127–169

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (2016) State Wildlife Action Plan for New Mexico. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe

    Google Scholar 

  • Poos MS, Jackson DA (2012) Addressing the removal of rare species in multivariate bioassessments: the impact of methodological choices. Ecol Indic 18:82–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price LG, Johnson PS, Bland D (2007) Water resources of the middle Rio Grande. New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Socorro

    Google Scholar 

  • Propst DL (1999) Threatened and endangered fishes of New Mexico. Santa Fe, pp 1–84

  • Rees DE, Miller MJ (2005) Rio Grande sucker (Catostomus plebeius): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5206797.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2021

  • Rees DE, Carr RJ, Miller WJ (2005) Rio Grande Chub (Gila pandora): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5200374.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2021

  • Reid AJ, Carlson AK, Creed IF, Eliason EJ, Gell PA, Johnson PT, Kidd KA, MacCormack TJ, Olden J, Ormerod SJ, Smol JP (2019) Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol Rev 94:849–873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Richter BD, Braun DP, Mendelson MA, Master LL (1997) Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna. Conserv Biol 11:1081–1093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rinne JN (1995) Reproductive biology of the Rio Grande sucker, Catostomus plebeius (Cypriniformes), in a montane stream, New Mexico. Southwest Nat 40:237–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Rio Grande Chub and Rio Grande Sucker Conservation Team (2021) Rio Grande Chub Conservation Strategy. https://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/wpfb-file/rio-grande-chub-conservation-strategy-pdf-2/. Accessed 9 June 2022

  • Sampson SJ, Chick JH, Pegg MA (2009) Diet overlap among two Asian carp and three native fishes in backwater lakes on the Illinois and Mississippi rivers. Biol Invasions 11:483–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser IJ (1987) The role of predation in age-and size-related habitat use by stream fishes. Ecology 68:651–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser IJ, Ebel KK (1989) Effects of flow regime and cyprinid predation on a headwater stream. Ecol Monogr 59:41–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith GR (1966) Distribution and evolution of the North America catostomid fishes of the subgenus Pantosteus genus Catostomus. Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, pp 140

  • Sublette EJ, Hatch DM, Sublette M (1990) The fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM (2004) The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 19:305–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Swift-Miller SM, Johnson BM, Muth RT (1999a) Factors affecting the diet and abundance of northern populations of Rio Grande sucker (Catostomus plebeius). Southwest Nat 44:148–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Swift-Miller SM, Johnson BM, Muth RT, Langlois D (1999b) Distribution, abundance, and habitat use of Rio Grande sucker (Catostomus plebeius) in Hot Creek, Colorado. Southwest Nat 44:42–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Vieira NK, Kondratieff BC, Ruiter DE, Durfee RS (2009) The aquatic insects of the Valles Caldera National Preserve, Sandoval County, New Mexico, excluding Diptera, with notes on new state records. J Kansas Entomol Soc 82:250–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vøllestad LA (2023) A paradoxical bias in knowledge about Norwegian freshwater fishes: research efforts during 1980–2020. Fauna Norvegica 42:6–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werner EE, Hall DJ (1977) Competition and habitat shift in two sunfishes (Centrarchidae). Ecology 58:869–876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White JA (1972) Food and Feeding Habits of the Rio Grande Mountain-sucker, Pantosteus plebeius (Baird and Girard). M.S. thesis. University of New Mexico. Albuquerque

  • Whiting DP, Whiles MR, Stone ML (2011) Patterns of macroinvertebrate production, trophic structure, and energy flow along a tallgrass prairie stream continuum. Limnol Oceanogr 56:887–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolman MG (1954) A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 35:951–956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman GM, Goetz H, Mielke PW Jr (1985) Use of an improved statistical method for group comparisons to study effects of prairie fire. Ecology 66:606–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman LD (1984) Rio Grande fishes management; July 1983 to June 1984. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University; Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Biology; Annual report to the Colorado Division of Wildlife, pp 150

  • Zuckerman LD, Bergersen EP (1986) Aquatic ecology and management of wilderness streams in the Great Sand Dunes National Monument, Colorado. US Forest Service General Technical Report INT 212:221-231

  • Zuckerman LD, Langlois D (1990) Status of Rio Grande sucker and chub in Colorado. Unpublished report, Colorado Div. Wildl., Montrose, CO. pp 44

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank TTU, the Department of Natural Resources Management, and the Davis College of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources for supporting this research project. We also thank T. Ausec, J. Ivie, A. Norton, and B. Robertory for their help in the field. Furthermore, we thank the members of the Collins Lab for their feedback over the duration of the project.

Funding

Funding and support was provided by the Department of Natural Resources Management, along with the Davis College of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources at Texas Tech University. The authors did not receive external funding support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Natural Resources Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

    Owen George & Scott F. Collins

Authors
  1. Owen George
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scott F. Collins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

OG: conceptualization (lead), methodology (equal), formal analysis (equal), investigation (equal), writing original draft (lead), visualization (equal); SFC: investigation (equal), resources (lead), data curation (lead), writing (review and editing), supervision (lead), and project administration (lead).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott F. Collins.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

All procedures involving animals were approved by TTU Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (T20016) and New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (3762).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6

Table 6 Average mass (mg/fish) of diet items consumed by Rio Grande sucker (RGS; Catostomus plebeius; n = 89) and Rio Grande chub (RGC; Gila pandora; n = 63). Diets that contained macroinvertebrates that were too digested to identify to Family were categorized as “unknown.” Diets were collected from between early July to late September 2020 in five streams in the Santa Fe National Forest, NM (USA)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

George, O., Collins, S.F. Diet habits and trophic ecology of Rio Grande Sucker and Rio Grande Chub. Environ Biol Fish 106, 1669–1684 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-023-01443-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-023-01443-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation